Unenhanced MR Imaging in adults with clinically suspected acute appendicitis

Diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains controversial. This systematic review details the evidence and current best practices for the evaluation and management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in adults and children.

METHODS

Eight questions regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis were formulated. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov/NLM were queried for articles published from 2010 to 2022 with key words related to at least one question. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Two reviewers screened each publication for eligibility and then extracted data from eligible studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on all quantitative data. The quality of randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 or Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively.

RESULTS

2792 studies were screened and 261 were included. Most had a high risk of bias. Computerized tomography scan yielded the highest sensitivity (> 80%) and specificity (> 93%) in the adult population, although high variability existed. In adults with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management resulted in higher odds of readmission (OR 6.10) and need for operation (OR 20.09), but less time to return to work/school (SMD - 1.78). In pediatric patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management also resulted in higher odds of need for operation (OR 38.31). In adult patients with complicated appendicitis, there were higher odds of need for operation following antibiotic treatment only (OR 29.00), while pediatric patients had higher odds of abscess formation (OR 2.23). In pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, higher risk of reoperation at any time point was observed in patients who had drains placed at the time of operation (RR 2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains nuanced. A personalized approach and appropriate patient selection remain key to treatment success. Further research on controversies in treatment would be useful for optimal management.

Rapid MRI Abdomen for Assessment of Clinically Suspected Acute Appendicitis in the General Adult Population: a Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review on the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the abdomen to evaluate clinically suspected appendicitis in the general adult population. We examined the diagnostic accuracy, the reported trends of MRI use, and the factors that affect the utility of MRI abdomen, including study duration and cost-benefits.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. We enrolled primary studies investigating the use of MRI in diagnosing appendicitis in the general adult population, excluding studies that predominantly reported on populations not representative of typical adult appendicitis presentations, such as those focusing on paediatric or pregnant populations.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven eligible primary studies and 6 secondary studies were included, totaling 2,044 patients from eight countries. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI for diagnosing appendicitis were 96% (95% CI: 93-97%) and 93% (95% CI: 80-98%), respectively. MRI can identify complicated appendicitis and accurately propose alternative diagnoses. The duration of MRI protocols in each primary study ranged between 2.26 and 30 minutes, and only one study used intravenous contrast agents in addition to the non-contrast sequences. Decision analysis suggests significant benefits for replacing computed tomography (CT) with MRI and a potential for cost reduction. Reported trends in MRI usage showed minimal utilisation in diagnostic settings even when MRI was available.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI accurately diagnoses appendicitis in the general adult population and improves the identification of complicated appendicitis or alternative diagnoses compared to other modalities using a single, rapid investigation.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosis of acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis remains a difficult disease to diagnose, and imaging adjuncts are commonly employed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an imaging test that can be used to diagnose appendicitis. It is not commonly regarded as a first-line imaging test for appendicitis, but the reported diagnostic accuracy in some studies is equivalent to computed tomography (CT) scans. As it does not expose patients to radiation, it is an attractive imaging modality, particularly in women and children.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting appendicitis in all patients. Secondary objectives: To investigate the accuracy of MRI in subgroups of pregnant women, children, and adults. To investigate the potential influence of MRI scanning variables such as sequences, slice thickness, or field of view.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until February 2021. We searched the references of included studies and other systematic reviews to identify further studies. We did not exclude studies that were unpublished, published in another language, or retrospective.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared the outcome of an MRI scan for suspected appendicitis with a reference standard of histology, intraoperative findings, or clinical follow-up. Three study team members independently filtered search results for eligible studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted study data and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2) tool. We used the bivariate model to calculate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 58 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis including a total of 7462 participants (1980 with and 5482 without acute appendicitis). Estimates of sensitivity ranged from 0.18 to 1.0; estimates of specificity ranged from 0.4 to 1.0. Summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.97); summary specificity was 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97). Sensitivity and specificity remained high on subgroup analysis for pregnant women (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99); specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98); 21 studies, 2282 women); children (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97); specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98); 17 studies, 2794 children); and adults (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.97); specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.98); 9 studies, 1088 participants), as well as different scanning techniques. In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, there would be 12 false-positive results and 30 false-negative results. Methodological quality of the included studies was poor, and the risk of bias was high or unclear in 53% to 83% of the QUADAS-2 domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MRI appears to be highly accurate in confirming and excluding acute appendicitis in adults, children, and pregnant women regardless of protocol. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low due to incomplete and low standards of follow-up, so summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity may be biased. We could not assess the impact and direction of potential bias given the very low number of high-quality studies. Studies comparing MRI protocols were few, and although we found no influence of MRI protocol variables on the summary estimates of accuracy, our results do not rule out that some MRI protocols are more accurate than others.

Comparison of MRI appendix biometrics in children with and without acute appendicitis

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to improve MRI-specific diagnostic criteria for pediatric appendicitis through comparison of normal and abnormal appendix-related imaging features.

METHODS

A retrospective multireader-multicase design was used, including non-contrast MRI performed for suspected pediatric appendicitis following non-diagnostic US from January 2014 to December 2017. Positive diagnosis was defined by surgical pathology or symptom resolution after antibiotics. Four pediatric radiologists independently graded study biometrics while blinded to clinical data. Balanced complete block design was used to determine performance characteristics.

RESULTS

Global diagnosis of appendicitis (208 studies) had sensitivity 90.6% and specificity 97.7%. Median appendix diameter was 10.4 mm among positive cases and 5.8 mm among negative cases (p < 0.001) with an optimal diagnostic cutoff of 7.5 mm (sensitivity 89.4%, specificity 86.5%). Median appendix wall thickness was 2.6 mm among positive cases and 1.7 mm among negative cases (p < 0.001) with an optimal diagnostic cutoff of 2.3 mm (sensitivity 63.1%, specificity 82.9%). Performance characteristics for qualitative appendix features included distinguishable appendix luminal signal (sensitivity 89.6%, specificity 83.7%), intraluminal fluid-signal intensity (sensitivity 63.6%; specificity 52.3%), intraluminal signal intermediate between fluid and bowel wall (sensitivity 91.0%; specificity 37.1%), appendicolith (sensitivity 34.9%; specificity 100.0%), intraluminal layering (sensitivity 25.9%; specificity 100.0%), hyperintense appendix wall signal (sensitivity 31.7%; specificity 100.0%), periappendiceal fluid (sensitivity 66.8%; specificity 72.5%), periappendiceal fatty edema (sensitivity 91.3%; specificity 94.5%), and free pelvic fluid (sensitivity 88.5%; specificity 26.0).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides MRI-specific performance of pediatric appendicitis quantitative and qualitative biometrics with peri-appendiceal fatty edema, appendix diameter > 7.5 mm, and distinguishable appendix luminal signal demonstrating the highest overall accuracy.

KEY POINTS

• This retrospective multireader-multicase study characterized magnetic resonance imaging-specific diagnostic accuracy of quantitative and qualitative biometrics for pediatric appendicitis. • The optimal quantitative diagnostic thresholds for an abnormal pediatric appendix at MRI included diameter and wall thickness of 7.5 mm and 2.3 mm, respectively. • Qualitative imaging biometrics with high specificity for pediatric appendicitis on MRI included the presence of distinguishable appendix lumen signal from wall signal, appendicolith, intraluminal fluid-fluid layer, appendix wall hyperintensity, and peri-appendiceal fatty edema.

The Correlation between Complete Blood Count Parameters and Appendix Diameter for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common causes of acute abdominal diseases seen between the ages of 10 and 19, mostly seen in males. The lifetime risk of developing acute appendicitis is 8.6% for males and 6.7% for females. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of the complete blood count parameters, C-reactive protein, and Lymphocyte-C-reactive Protein Ratio laboratory tests in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, as well as their relationship with appendix diameter. We retrospectively examined all patients who underwent appendectomy between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2019 in the General Surgery Clinic of Gaziosmanpasa University Faculty of Medicine. Laboratory tests, imaging findings, age, and gender were recorded. Lymphoid hyperplasia is considered as normal appendix—in other words, as negative appendicitis. The distribution of Lymphoid hyperplasia and appendicitis rates were statistically different in the groups formed according to appendix diameter (≤6 and >6 mm) (p < 0.001). We found a significant correlation between appendix diameter and WBC (White blood count), Lymphocyte, Neutrophil, RDW(Red blood cell distribution width), NLR(Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio), and PLT/L (Platelet to lymphocyte ratio), MPV (Mean platelet volume) and RDW were significantly different in patients with an appendix diameter of ≤6 mm (p = 0.007, p = 0.006, respectively). WBC, Neutrophil, PDW, and NLR values were significantly different between appendicitis and hyperplasia groups in patients with an appendix diameter of >6 mm. The sensitivity of the NLR score (cutoff = 2.6057) in the diagnosis of appendicitis was 86.1% and selectivity was 50% in these patients. Complete blood count parameters evaluation with the clinical findings revealed that NLR is an important parameter that may help the diagnosis of acute appendicitis with an appendix diameter of >6 mm. In patients whose pathological results indicated acute appendicitis but who had a diameter of ≤6 mm, we found an elevated MPV and low RDW values.

Performance characteristics of magnetic resonance imaging without contrast agents or sedation in pediatric appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as a promising modality for evaluating pediatric appendicitis. However optimal imaging protocols, including roles of contrast agents and sedation, have not been established and diagnostic criteria have not been fully evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate performance characteristics of rapid MRI without contrast agents or sedation in the diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included patients ages 4-18 years with suspicion of appendicitis who underwent rapid MRI between October 2013 and March 2015 without contrast agent or sedation. After two-radiologist review, we determined performance characteristics of individual diagnostic criteria and aggregate diagnostic criteria by comparing MRI results to clinical outcomes. We used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to determine cut-points for appendiceal diameter and wall thickness for optimization of predictive power, and we calculated area under the curve (AUC) as a measure of test accuracy.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight MRI examinations were performed in 97 subjects. Overall, MRI had a 94% sensitivity, 95% specificity, 91% positive predictive value and 97% negative predictive value. Optimal cut-points for appendiceal diameter and wall thickness were ≥7 mm and ≥2 mm, respectively. Independently, those cut-points produced sensitivities of 91% and 84% and specificities of 84% and 43%. Presence of intraluminal fluid (30/33) or localized periappendiceal fluid (32/33) showed a significant association with acute appendicitis (P<0.01), with sensitivities of 91% and 97% and specificities of 60% and 50%. For examinations in which the appendix was not identified by one or both reviewers (23/98), the clinical outcome was negative.

CONCLUSION

Rapid MRI without contrast agents or sedation is accurate for diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis when multiple diagnostic criteria are considered in aggregate. Individual diagnostic criteria including optimized cut-points of ≥7 mm for diameter and ≥2 mm for wall thickness demonstrate high sensitivities but relatively low specificities. Nonvisualization of the appendix favors a negative diagnosis.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of MRI for Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed to determine the accuracy of MRI in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the general population and in subsets of pregnant patients and children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases for articles published through the end of October 2014 was performed to identify studies that used MRI to evaluate patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. Pooled data for sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies that comprised 2665 patients were reviewed. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis are 96% (95% CI, 95-97%) and 96% (95% CI, 95-97%), respectively. In a subgroup of studies that focused solely on pregnant patients, the sensitivity and specificity of MRI were 94% (95% CI, 87-98%) and 97% (95% CI, 96-98%), respectively, whereas in studies that focused on children, sensitivity and specificity were found to be 96% (95% CI, 95-97%) and 96% (95% CI, 94-98%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

MRI has a high accuracy for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, for a wide range of patients, and may be acceptable for use as a first-line diagnostic test.

An Imaging Diagnostic Protocol in Children with Clinically Suspected Acute Appendicitis

The objective of the present study is to evaluate a new diagnostic strategy using clinical findings followed by ultrasound (US) and, in selected cases, MRI. This study included 166 children presenting signs and symptoms suggesting acute appendicitis. Cases classified as suggesting appendicitis according to clinical exams had to be referred to surgery, whereas the other cases were discharged. Unclear cases were evaluated using US. If the US results were considered inconclusive, patients underwent MRI. Of the 166 patients, 78 (47%) had acute appendicitis and 88 (53%) had other diseases. The strategy under study had a sensitivity of 96 per cent, specificity of 100 per cent, positive predictive value of 100 per cent, negative predictive value of 97 per cent, and accuracy of 98 per cent. Eight patients remained undiagnosed and underwent MRI. After MRI two girls presented normal appendixes and were discharged. One girl had an enlarged appendix on MRI and appendicitis could have been confirmed by surgery. In the other five patients, no other sign of the disease was detected by MRI such as an inflammatory mass, free fluid or an abscess in the right iliac fossa. All of them were discharged after clinical observation. In the vast majority of cases the correct diagnosis was reached by clinical and US examinations. When clinical assessment and US findings were inconclusive, MRI was useful to detect normal and abnormal appendixes and valuable to rule out other abdominal pathologies that mimic appendicitis.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis in the general population

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies since 2005 that evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the general population presenting to emergency departments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All retrospective and prospective studies evaluating the accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis published in English and listed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cinahl Plus, and the Cochrane Library since 2005 were included. Excluded studies were those without an explicitly stated reference standard, with insufficient data to calculate the study outcomes, or if the population enrolled was limited to pregnant women or children. Data were abstracted by one investigator and confirmed by another. Data included the number of true positives, true negatives, false positives, false negatives, number of equivocal cases, type of MRI scanner, type of MRI sequence, and demographic data including study setting and gender distribution. Summary test characteristics were calculated. Forest plots and a summary receiver operator characteristic plot were generated.

RESULTS

Ten studies met eligibility criteria, representing patients from seven countries. Nine were prospective and two were multicenter studies. A total of 838 subjects were enrolled; 406 (48%) were women. All studies routinely used unenhanced MR images, although two used intravenous contrast-enhancement and three used diffusion-weighted imaging. Using a bivariate random-effects model the summary sensitivity was 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.3%-98.5%) and summary specificity was 95.9% (95% CI: 89.4%-98.4%).

CONCLUSION

MRI has a high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of appendicitis, similar to that reported previously for computed tomography. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;43:1346-1354.

Imaging for appendicitis: should radiation-induced cancer risks affect modality selection?

PURPOSE

To compare life expectancy (LE) losses attributable to three imaging strategies for appendicitis in adults-computed tomography (CT), ultrasonography (US) followed by CT for negative or indeterminate US results, and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-by using a decision-analytic model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this model, for each imaging strategy, LE losses for 20-, 40-, and 65-year-old men and women were computed as a function of five key variables: baseline cohort LE, test performance, surgical mortality, risk of death from delayed diagnosis (missed appendicitis), and LE loss attributable to radiation-induced cancer death. Appendicitis prevalence, test performance, mortality rates from surgery and missed appendicitis, and radiation doses from CT were elicited from the published literature and institutional data. LE loss attributable to radiation exposure was projected by using a separate organ-specific model that accounted for anatomic coverage during a typical abdominopelvic CT examination. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate effects of model input variability on results.

RESULTS

Outcomes across imaging strategies differed minimally-for example, for 20-year-old men, corresponding LE losses were 5.8 days (MR imaging), 6.8 days (combined US and CT), and 8.2 days (CT). This order was sensitive to differences in test performance but was insensitive to variation in radiation-induced cancer deaths. For example, in the same cohort, MR imaging sensitivity had to be 91% at minimum (if specificity were 100%), and MR imaging specificity had to be 62% at minimum (if sensitivity were 100%) to incur the least LE loss. Conversely, LE loss attributable to radiation exposure would need to decrease by 74-fold for combined US and CT, instead of MR imaging, to incur the least LE loss.

CONCLUSION

The specific imaging strategy used to diagnose appendicitis minimally affects outcomes. Paradigm shifts to MR imaging owing to concerns over radiation should be considered only if MR imaging test performance is very high.

Improvement in the diagnosis of appendicitis

Our attempts to systematically improve accuracy in the evaluation of patients with suspected appendicitis are, in some ways, hindered by the fact that the condition is so frequently straightforward to diagnose. Careful history-taking and physical examination are reliable in most patients. However, establishing the diagnosis with these skills alone remains vulnerable to conditions that masquerade as acute appendicitis. A substantial body of clinical research over the last quarter-century has shown that improved accuracy is possible. Strategies for improvement include the use of diagnostic scoring systems, laboratory makers such as CRP, diagnostic laparoscopy, and advanced imaging modalities such as CT, MRI, and US. How clinicians use these strategies depends on many factors related to practice setting, the population served, and clinical goals. In children, for instance, the desire to limit exposure to ionizing radiation competes with the greater anatomic detail that a CT scan can provide; at the same time, many hospitals that treat children do not have the resources to maintain the sort of full-time, highly sophisticated abdominal US programs that achieve the highest rates of diagnostic accuracy in clinical studies. Trade-offs have to be made, but improvement is possible in almost all groups of patients: the clinical community should no longer settle for a 15% NA rate when 5% is clearly possible without adverse consequences. Many clinicians will be faced with the task of evaluating patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. A deliberate, proactive, and, ideally, benchmarked strategy for improving diagnosis should be the standard to which we hold ourselves and the promise we deliver to our patients.

MRI features associated with acute appendicitis

OBJECTIVES

To identify MRI features associated with appendicitis.

METHODS

Features expected to be associated with appendicitis were recorded in consensus by two expert radiologists on 223 abdominal MRIs in patients with suspected appendicitis. Nine MRI features were studied: appendix diameter >7 mm, appendicolith, peri-appendiceal fat infiltration, peri-appendiceal fluid, absence of gas in the appendix, appendiceal wall destruction, restricted diffusion of the appendiceal wall, lumen or focal fluid collections. Appendicitis was assigned as the final diagnosis in 117/223 patients. Associations between imaging features and appendicitis were evaluated with logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

All investigated features were significantly associated with appendicitis in univariate analysis. Combinations of two and three features were associated with a probability of appendicitis of 88 % and 92 %, respectively. In patients without any of the nine features, appendicitis was present in 2 % of cases. After multivariate analysis, only an appendix diameter >7 mm, peri-appendiceal fat infiltration and restricted diffusion of the appendiceal wall were significantly associated with appendicitis. The probability of appendicitis was 96 % in their presence and 2 % in their absence.

CONCLUSIONS

An appendix diameter >7 mm, peri-appendiceal fat infiltration and restricted diffusion of the appendiceal wall have the strongest association with appendicitis on MRI.

KEY POINTS

• An enlarged appendix, fat infiltration and restricted diffusion are associated with appendicitis. • One such feature on MRI gives an 88 % probability of appendicitis. • Two features in combination give a probability of appendicitis of 94 %. • Combinations of three features give a probability of appendicitis of 96 %. • The absence of these features almost rules out appendicitis (2 %).

Diffusion-weighted MRI of the abdomen: current value in clinical routine

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides high tissue contrast without ionizing radiation exposure and unenhanced images are often diagnostic. Therefore, MRI is especially an attractive tool for patients with allergies for gadolinium-based contrast agents or renal failure. Technical advantages have led to the increasing use of diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI in abdominal imaging, which provides qualitative and quantitative information of tissue cellularity and the integrity of cellular membranes. This review article presents the current status of noncontrast MRI with the focus of DW-MRI. Technical background and clinical applications are explained and discussed.

Comparison of imaging strategies with conditional contrast-enhanced CT and unenhanced MR imaging in patients suspected of having appendicitis: a multicenter diagnostic performance study

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performance of imaging strategies with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomographic (CT) imaging in adult patients suspected of having appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to study initiation, and patients gave written informed consent. In a multicenter diagnostic performance study, adults suspected of having appendicitis were prospectively identified in the emergency department. Consenting patients underwent ultrasonography (US) and subsequent contrast-enhanced CT if US imaging yielded negative or inconclusive results. Additionally, all patients underwent unenhanced MR imaging, with the reader blinded to other findings. An expert panel assigned final diagnosis after 3 months. Diagnostic performance of three imaging strategies was evaluated: conditional CT after US, conditional MR imaging after US, and immediate MR imaging. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by comparing findings with final diagnosis.

RESULTS

Between March and September 2010, 229 US, 115 CT, and 223 MR examinations were performed in 230 patients (median age, 35 years; 40% men). Appendicitis was the final diagnosis in 118 cases. Conditional and immediate MR imaging had sensitivity and specificity comparable to that of conditional CT, which resulted in 3% (three of 118; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1%, 7%) missed appendicitis, and 8% (10 of 125; 95% CI: 4%, 14%) false-positives. Conditional MR missed appendicitis in 2% (two of 118; 95% CI: 0%, 6%) and generated 10% (13 of 129; 95% CI: 6%, 16%) false-positives. Immediate MR missed 3% (four of 117; 95% CI: 1%, 8%) appendicitis with 6% (seven of 120; 95% CI: 3%, 12%) false-positives. Conditional strategies resulted in more false-positives in women than in men (conditional CT, 17% vs 0%; P = .03; conditional MR, 19% vs 1%; P = .04), wherease immediate MR imaging did not.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of conditional or immediate MR imaging was similar to that of conditional CT in patients suspected of having appendicitis, which implied that strategies with MR imaging may replace conditional CT for appendicitis detection.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of imaging in acute cholecystitis

PURPOSE

To update previously summarized estimates of diagnostic accuracy for acute cholecystitis and to obtain summary estimates for more recently introduced modalities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases up to March 2011 to identify studies about evaluation of imaging modalities in patients who were suspected of having acute cholecystitis. Inclusion criteria were explicit criteria for a positive test result, surgery and/or follow-up as the reference standard, and sufficient data to construct a 2 × 2 table. Studies about evaluation of predominantly acalculous cholecystitis in intensive care unit patients were excluded. Bivariate random-effects modeling was used to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven studies were included, with evaluation of 5859 patients. Sensitivity of cholescintigraphy (96%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 94%, 97%) was significantly higher than sensitivity of ultrasonography (US) (81%; 95% CI: 75%, 87%) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (85%; 95% CI: 66%, 95%). There were no significant differences in specificity among cholescintigraphy (90%; 95% CI: 86%, 93%), US (83%; 95% CI: 74%, 89%) and MR imaging (81%; 95% CI: 69%, 90%). Only one study about evaluation of computed tomography (CT) met the inclusion criteria; the reported sensitivity was 94% (95% CI: 73%, 99%) at a specificity of 59% (95% CI: 42%, 74%).

CONCLUSION

Cholescintigraphy has the highest diagnostic accuracy of all imaging modalities in detection of acute cholecystitis. The diagnostic accuracy of US has a substantial margin of error, comparable to that of MR imaging, while CT is still underevaluated.

Acute appendicitis on abdominal MR images: training readers to improve diagnostic accuracy

PURPOSE

To determine if training with direct feedback helps to improve the diagnostic performance of inexperienced readers in the detection of appendicitis on magnetic resonance (MR) images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional review board approved this retrospective study and waived the requirement for informed consent. Nine radiologists and eight residents without experience in evaluating MR images for acute abdominal conditions evaluated a training set of images from 100 MR imaging examinations of patients suspected of having appendicitis and received direct feedback after each evaluation. An expert panel made a diagnosis of appendicitis in 45 patients and an alternative diagnosis in 55 patients on the basis of histopathologic examination and follow-up. Readers recorded two diagnoses: the first after viewing images from conventional MR sequences (half-Fourier rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement and true fast imaging with steady-state precession) and the second after viewing diffusion-weighted (DW) MR images. Reader sensitivity and specificity were calculated per set of 25 cases.

RESULTS

The average reader sensitivity for detecting appendicitis improved significantly after training (0.82 vs 0.92, P = .003); the average specificity improved nonsignificantly (0.82 vs 0.88, P = .10). Sensitivity for radiologists increased from 0.81 in the first set of 25 cases to 0.91 in the last set, and specificity improved from 0.82 to 0.85. For residents, sensitivity increased from 0.82 to 0.94, and specificity increased from 0.82 to 0.91. Sensitivity improved from 0.80 to 0.87 (P < .001) in all readings combined when DW images were read in addition to conventional MR images.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic accuracy of inexperienced readers in the evaluation of abdominal MR images for acute appendicitis improved after training with direct feedback, and the addition of DW images improved reader sensitivity.

Optimizing imaging in suspected appendicitis (OPTIMAP-study): a multicenter diagnostic accuracy study of MRI in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Study Protocol

Background

In patients with clinically suspected appendicitis, imaging is needed to substantiate the clinical diagnosis. Imaging accuracy of ultrasonography (US) is suboptimal, while the most accurate technique (CT) is associated with cancer related deaths through exposure to ionizing radiation. MRI is a potential replacement, without associated ionizing radiation and no need for contrast medium administration. If MRI is proven to be sufficiently accurate, it could be introduced in the diagnostic pathway of patients with suspected appendicitis, increasing diagnostic accuracy and improving clinical outcomes, without the risk of radiation induced cancer or iodinated contrast medium-related drawbacks. The multicenter OPTIMAP study was designed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI in patients with suspected acute appendicitis in the general population.

Methods/Design

Eligible for this study are consecutive patients presenting with clinically suspected appendicitis at the emergency department in six centers. All patients will undergo imaging according to the Dutch guideline for acute appendicitis: initial ultrasonography in all and subsequent CT whenever US does not confirm acute appendicitis. Then MRI is performed in all patients, but the results are not used for patient management. A final diagnosis assigned by an expert panel, based on all available information including 3-months follow-up, except MRI findings, is used as the reference standard in estimating accuracy. We will calculate the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and inter-observer agreement of MRI, and aim to include 230 patients. Patient acceptance and total imaging costs will also be evaluated.

Discussion

If MRI is found to be sufficiently accurate, it could replace CT in some or all patients. This will limit or obviate the ionizing radiation exposure associated risk of cancer induction and contrast medium induced nephropathy with CT, preventing the burden and the direct and indirect costs associated with treatment. Based on the high intrinsic contrast resolution of MRI, one might envision higher accuracy rates for MRI than for CT. If so, MRI could further decrease the number of unnecessary appendectomies and the number of missed appendicitis cases.

Trial registration

NTR2148